Thread: Real estate/tenants/landlords legal question

The simple answer is they should have had contents insurance.
Unless they can prove negligence by the landlord I doubt they would have any success with a claim.
What would they do if they owned the house but did not have contents insurance.
At the end of the day contents insurance is not that expensive.
Maybe talk the your state authority that deals with tenancy and see what the tenancy act provides for.
But the landlord could also come back with the tenants disrupted the pipe.
I can see both sides.
Also talk to the landlord in an amicable manner first as he may just have insurance cover that may cover this.

Originally Posted by pfillery

A friend of mine rents a house. Recently a pipe under the sink in the ensuite burst and flooded their entire level. the failure was due to an old pipe that just popped (the flexi hose between the wall and the tap). Their stuff, pretty much everything on the floor and less than 3 inches tall got wet, so they lost a laptop, camera, dvd player, a couple of nintendo DS consoles and games, plus had to spend 2 days washing all their waterlogged clothes and linen.

They have no contents insurance. As it was a failure of the house and the landlord/owner has a duty of care to ensure the property is well maintained, are they liable or somewhat liable to repair or replace these things or compensate somehow? After all nothing would have been damaged if the pipe didn't burst. Just like if your tyre blows and you crash into another car, you are legally responsible.

Anyone had a similar experience?

pfillery,

I think the landlords insurance would cover damage to carpets, vanity units etc and and the premises generally. The contents would usually be covered by contents insurance held by the tenant.

They should also check their tenancy agreement as it might specifically state that the tenant needs to have contents insurance, I know leases for commercial premises have specific clauses stating the tenant must hold certain insurances.

I agree with CraigE, best course of action would be to check with the states authorities about where responsibility might lie and have a friendly chat to the landlord or their agent as a first port of call.

If the landlord is amenable then claiming on their insurance for the damaged electrical goods would not cause them great issue but the tenant might need to agree to cover the potential increase in insurance premium going forward.

George

Originally Posted by pfillery

A friend of mine rents a house. Recently a pipe under the sink in the ensuite burst and flooded their entire level. the failure was due to an old pipe that just popped (the flexi hose between the wall and the tap). Their stuff, pretty much everything on the floor and less than 3 inches tall got wet, so they lost a laptop, camera, dvd player, a couple of nintendo DS consoles and games, plus had to spend 2 days washing all their waterlogged clothes and linen.

They have no contents insurance. As it was a failure of the house and the landlord/owner has a duty of care to ensure the property is well maintained, are they liable or somewhat liable to repair or replace these things or compensate somehow? After all nothing would have been damaged if the pipe didn't burst. Just like if your tyre blows and you crash into another car, you are legally responsible.

Anyone had a similar experience?

How old are these people? Whats that sort of gear doing on a floor?


And as per other posters... I dont think they have a valid claim.

"Duty of Care" is bandied about way to much nowadays....

Tenants should have contents at the very least.

Landlords usually only have building and does not cover much else.
For a burst pipe, thats stuff that can just happen but what you have to ask is why did the floor trap not drain the water?
That is where you may have a claim. Wet areas must either have a overflow prevention device or a floor trap/drain or was that covered with clothes left on floor in which case its back to you.

The tenants should have had contents insurance and would have made things easier.

However that is almost irrelevant as the pipe in the house broke which is a landlord responsibility.

The landlord has a responsibility to meet any damage to tenants effects caused by a failure in the house.

I would be claiming (for reasonable claims) against the landlord - it is up to the landlord to decide whether to claim against any insurance they may or may not have.

Garry

Hi Pfillery,

Everyone is correct that the simple solution would have been contents insurance. Most landlord's insurance covers both property damage and third party liability. Worth asking that Q.

Answering the question posed. The general rule is that the landlord is not liable for damage caused by a latent defect. A landlord may be held liable for damage caused by defects that would be identified on inspection in the usual course of maintaining a property. The Courts don't, generally, impose a duty on the landlord to go looking for defects. There, generally, would not be a duty on the landlord to engage a plumber to come out and inspect all the pipes to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The rider to that statement is if the landlord was on notice of the defect in the pipe and failed to act.

There has to be some negligence on the part of the landlord. We don't live in a strict liability world where someone is liable whenever you suffer loss. Sometimes stuff happens, an accident. It is inevitable in an ageing house that stuff will break.

That all said, it's worth hitting the landlord up for the damage. Go see a local solicitor whom should be able to provide sound advice. If in NSW there is the CTTT which is a tribunal designed to deal with these types of tenant/landlord disputes. Other states will have similar tribunals as a cheap and quick dispute resolution process. I hold little faith in getting it over the line.

cheers MLD

with the shoe on the other foot as a landlord for a year , while touring about , we found our house in a shape less than desirable. Freshly polished floor boards scratches , screens broken plants missing from the backyard etc etc. the result was a trip to court where we could only get the bond back , estimated to only cover about half the damage , and the tenents as far as we know did not get a black mark against them. the landlord insurance fell through as we couldnt claim any of the above was deliberate , even the fact that they allowed a largish dog into the house contrary to the lease. it hd to be proven it was theirs ! in my opinion insurance of this type isnt worth the paper it is written on

Your friend's would have been better off if it were the flat upstairs that had the water leak!

If they claim against the landlord, they may well find the rent is raised immediately or they are given notice to quit.